One Man and One Woman is NOT Scriptural
Look, Mr. Perkins may have the financial luxury of living his life for the sake of "History" or "Antropological purity", passing out moral judgments that are the hardship of others to bear; but I represent real couples, gay kids, and families that ought to have their relationships civilly recognized and legally protected, period.
This is long, but there is no shortcut.I'm not sure how much these newshour debates matter, in terms of public opinion making, but I've been thinking about the suggestions of some, like Justin, to not be afraid to, in one way or another, incorporate some religious "thinking" into the dialog.
Two items:
1. One-man-and-One-woman is NOT scriptural
I don't see any harm in saying so, especially because it raises doubt about the self-appointed arbiters, who write books called Personal Faith, Public Lies (or whatever it was).
The term "traditional marriage" is subterfuge, to some degree. Why not be clear with the audience/voters: "one man and one woman" is NOT scriptural. It would be okay, I think, to use the word "scriptural", even an imperative. Put another way, when someone objects that we are changing the definition of marriage, their coded implication is that people should vote their religious beliefs, their religious definition, their "personal faith" definition. Of course, it is exactly that type of action that needs be stopped, by making people conscious of how they are being manipulated by language.
After that, the argument is easy, because the subsequent appeals to "common sense" (Maggie Gallagher) and "anthropology" (David Blankenhorn) can be easily knocked over. For example, "Did you understand that, Andersen, about History and Antropology? I didn't. Look, Mr. Perkins may have the financial luxury of living his life for the sake of 'History' or 'Antropological purity', passing out moral judgments that are the hardship of others to bear; but I represent real couples, gay kids, and families that ought to have their relationships recognized and legally protected, period." (One can go on, here, right ... there is plenty of room left for an escalating rant.)
Last, this whole "redefinition of marriage" is appealing to some with that kind of mindset. Is there a short way to combat the inherent falsity, a soundbite method? Yes, perhaps, as follows: If you have a bookcase and you put a another shelf in it, it is still a bookcase. There is no redefinition. The bookcase is still a bookcase. Nongays will continue to marry each other, with the same expectations, and society will continue. Just as it has been doing in Canada, Spain, and Norway, and every other place that gays get married, already.
2. Freedom to teach your kids
This idea is not religious, but it has overtones in the conversation that religion is not opposed to knowledge.
I don't know what Mr. Perkins intends to teach his kids. My message might be something like this: "You are free to teach your kids morals or conduct that you believe right, to give them that kind of education. But, you are not entitled to your own facts about the world. Mr. Perkins should be upfront with the voters: No amount of voting is going to change the number of gay couples or gay kids. Hiding from the world is not any faith-based sensibility that I know. Kids will find out that there are other gay kids, even Christian ones. Mr. Perkins can get votes by offering a temporary, false comfort to voters that they can somehow avoid that, but eventually these kids are going to resent him and his organization for having misled them.
*postcript - this is not a screed against Evan. He's a very capable advocate. He's also very approachable.
